2016 Loughborough Antennas & Propagation Conference (LAPC)

Subarrays in linear array configurations,

an effective instrument for scan loss compensation

Fannush Shofi Akbar†, Leonardus P. Ligthart‡ , Ioan E. Lager‡ , and Gamantyo Hendrantoro†
†
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Department of Electrical Engineering, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia,
Email: fannush.akbar13@mhs.ee.its.ac.id
‡
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science,
Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD Delft, the Netherlands

Abstract—A novel approach is proposed for compensating
the scan loss in wide-angular scanning array antennas due to
the pattern falloff of physical radiators. The method is based
on replacing elements in (linear) arrays with subarrays with
enhanced radiation intensity at large angles. This strategy is
best applicable in the case of sparse arrays that intrinsically
provide the space for accommodating subarrays. An optimised
linear subarray, with 5 dB radiation intensity enhancement at 60◦
is designed. This subarray is then incorporated in linear array
antennas with (approximately) 50% thinning factors. An up to
1.2 dB improvement of the maximum directivity at 60◦ beam
scanning is obtained. The obtained results allow conjecturing
that a similar strategy, when applied to planar arrays, will lead
to an even more significant scan-loss reduction, this yielding a
substantial performance enhancement for wide-angular scanning
radar array antennas.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Modern radar applications place high demands on the
electronic beam scanning of the pertaining antenna systems. In
particular, circular beam scanning via facetted array antennas
often requires extremely wide beam scanning, with a beam
scanning from −60◦ up to 60◦ with respect to the facet’s
broadside being often specified. Achieving such performance
requires dealing with important design and technological dif-
ficulties. One such challenge follows from the intrinsic falloff
of the radiation pattern of physical radiators. For example, a
cos(ϑ)-type radiator exhibits a 6 dB loss at 60◦ . The perfor-
mance degradation is even more accentuated in the case of
dense, planar arrays that are known to have lower directivity
characteristics with scanning. This situation is inacceptable for
time, maximising the number of empty spaces large enough
for accommodating the optimised subarrays. The radiation
performance of these configurations are discussed in detail.
The encouraging obtained results allow conjecturing that
this strategy, when applied to planar arrays, will lead to
an important scan-loss reduction in planar arrays. Such an
improvement is conducive to substantially enhancing the per-
formance of wide-angular scanning radar array antennas.
II. D ESIGN PHILOSOPHY
A. Prerequisites
Let the case of the linear array in Fig. 1.a, consisting
of N radiators located along the Ox axis at r n = xn x̂,
m = 1, 2, . . . , N and x1 = 0, with x̂ being the unit
vector along the Ox axis. As habitually with linear arrays [4,
Chapter 6], the radiation pattern is considered with respect to
the angle ϑ ∈ [−π/2, π/2], with ϑ measuring the tilting from
the x = 0 plane and assuming positive values in the half-
space x > 0. The excitation is time-harmonic, with frequency
f . The excitations at all feeding ports have unit amplitude and
are in phase for broadside radiation and have progressive phase
shifts for beam scanning. The array radiates in free space, the
wavespeed being c0 and the corresponding wavelength being
λ = c0 /f . The radiators are taken to radiate in the upper half-
space z > 0, only. The array’s directivity [4, Section 2.2] can
then be expressed as
κ 2 [E(ϑ) · E ∗ (ϑ)]
D(ϑ) = (1)

π/2

many radar applications and remedies are stringently needed. [E(ϑ) · E ∗ (ϑ)] dϑ
−π/2
This paper introduces a novel approach to tackling this
where E(ϑ) is the electric field strength on the far-field sphere
problem, by using subarrays with enhanced radiation intensity
of radius R  λ/2π and ‘*’ denotes complex conjugation.
at large angles. Such subarrays could be appended at the edges
The parameter κ accounts for the one-directional radiation and
of dense arrays. However, a much more effective approach is
takes the values 1 for half-space normalisation and 2 for full-
to opportunely make use of the free space inside sparse arrays,
space normalisation.
this allowing accommodating a substantially larger number of
subarrays on, essentially, the same overall real estate, with the
B. Subarrays as a means to compensate the scan loss
ensuing improved scan-loss compensation.
As stated in the Introduction, the elementary radiation
For clarity, this paper is restricted to the investigation of
pattern directly impacts on the radiated field, this effect being
linear arrays. Firstly a linear subarray with a 5 dB radiation
highly relevant in the case of wide-scanning arrays. For exam-
intensity enhancement at 60◦ is designed. Two prototype linear
ple, a cos(ϑ)-type radiator exhibits an intrinsic loss of 6 dB at
arrays are then designed by means of the dynamic program-
60◦ , this being inacceptable for many radar applications.
ming (DynP) [1] and the Cyclic Difference Sets (CDS) [2],
[3] placement strategies. The array design aims at providing An expedient way for precluding this loss is by resorting
an (approximately) 50% thinning factor while, at the same to subarrays with a convenient radiation pattern that, ideally,

978-1-5090-0783-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

 2016 Loughborough Antennas & Propagation Conference (LAPC)
z
I =Phase shifter
ϑ
x at λ/2. The subarray radiators are fed via a power divider
O x1 x2 xn xN −1 xN
Feeding
network
a equal phase feeding.
z
ϑ 5
x 4
O x1 x2 xn xN −1 xN
Feeding
network
b 2
Fig. 1. Investigated configurations. (a) Linear array consisting of N radiators
located along the Ox-axis; each element is fed via an individual phase shifter.
(b) Same array, with some of the elements being replaced by subarrays.
should fully compensate the elementary pattern’s falloff. This
idea is illustrated in Fig. 1.b in which some of the elements in
the original linear array in Fig. 1.a are replaced by subarrays
consisting of a primary element, collocated with the original
element, enclosed between two parasitic elements. The intro-
duction of the subarray should not perturb the (presumably,
optimised) array factor (AF) of the original array. To that end,
the phase centre of the (meta-)element at the relevant location
may not shift. If all 3 elements in the subarray are fed with
the same phase and the subarray is symmetric, elementary
results in Fourier transform theory [5, p. 13] directly state
that the subarray’s AF is real and symmetric. Consequently,
the AF’s phase is constant on the far-field sphere, as in the
case with isotropic radiators. Such subarrays then comply to
the requirement of not shifting the phase centre and will be
henceforth consistently used.
Evidently, the linear array’s architecture must offer suf-
ficient room around the elements to be substituted for ac-
commodating the intended subarrays. For uniform arrays, this
will imply a two wide inter-element spacing that is likely
to result in the onset of grating lobes (GL-s). Resorting
to non-uniform arrays seems unavoidable. Several effective,
well tested strategies for designing sparse arrays are readily
available. In this paper, we focus on the DynP and CDS
placements, with possible alternatives being found in [6]–[9].
III. 3- ELEMENTS SUBARRAY DESIGN
ϑ the design aims at obtaining comparable array lengths. The
xn −λ/2 xn xn +λ/2
An− An An+
Fig. 2. Generic X3-sa consisting of a main radiator and two λ/2-spaced
parasitic elements, fed via a power divider attenuator.
A symmetric array of 3 elements, hereafter referred to
as X3-sa, was designed for being employed as subarray.
978-1-5090-0783-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
The configuration is shown in Fig. 2, the primary element
being located at xn and the parasitic elements being spaced
attenuator yielding the elementary amplitudes An , An− and
An+ , respectively, with An , An− , An+ ∈ R for ensuring an
5.5 -0.14
-0.14 dBi
dBi 4.87
4.87 dBi
dBi
4.5
3.5
|D(ϑ)| [dBi]
3
2.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
ϑ [deg]
Fig. 3. Directivity pattern (κ = 1) of the optimised X3-sa.
The quantities An , An− and An+ were optimised via a grid
search strategy for maximising the radiation at the intended
end-of-coverage angle of 60◦ . The procedure yielded An =
1 and An− = An+ = −0.145, the corresponding radiation
pattern being shown in Fig. 3. The radiation intensity is slightly
diminished at broadside, namely D(0◦ ) = −0.14 dBi, but is
significantly enforced at 60◦ , with D(60◦ ) = 4.87 dBi. While
the latter value does not fully compensate the 6 dBi loss of
a cos(ϑ)-type pattern, this design offers a good compromise
between performance and the subarray physical size.
IV. P ERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
The scan loss compensation strategy advocated in Sec-
tion II-B is now demonstrated for the case of two linear
arrays that are deemed interesting for practical applications.
The performance of the original linear arrays will be firstly
discussed and the improvement as a result of introducing the
X3-sa-s will be then examined. This analysis will focus on 3
scanning angles, namely ϑs = 0◦ , ϑs = 30◦ and ϑs = 60◦ .
A. Thinned, linear arrays
In this paper, we analyse thinned, sparse, linear arrays
using a λ/2-spaced generating lattice. The envisaged thinning
factor is 50%. Two thinning techniques that are known to
preclude the onset of GL-s are employed. In both cases,
key objective is enhancing the number of isolated elements,
namely elements with no immediate neighbours, these being
the evident candidates for being replaced by X3-sa-s.
The first linear array was designed via the DynP [1]
placement strategy. The configuration is shown in Fig. 4.a. It
replicates the one discussed in [10], where details on the design
method can also be found. The resulting array has 30 elements
and its length is 29.5λ. The second array was obtained via
the CDS placement [2], [3], by complementing the placement
following from the by 35 cyclically shifted, {59, 29, 14} CDS
available in [11]. The resulting array is shown in Fig. 4.b. It
has the same number of elements as the previous one, but its
length is marginally smaller, namely 29λ.
 2016 Loughborough Antennas & Propagation Conference (LAPC)

z
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 30
TABLE I. K EY ARRAY PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR THE ARRAY
x FACTORS IN F IG . 5.
O
D(ϑ)max Beamwidth First SLL Peak SL
29.5 λ
a DynP placement
z
ϑs = 0◦ 14.8 dBi 2.6◦ -16.3 dB -14.6 dB
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 30
x ϑs = 30◦ 14.8 dBi 3◦ -16.3 dB -14.6 dB
O ◦
ϑs = 60 14.8 dBi 5.2◦ -16.3 dB -14.6 dB
29 λ CDS placement
b ϑs = 0◦ 14.8 dBi 1.8◦ -13.3 dB -12.9 dB
ϑs = 30◦ 14.8 dBi 2.1◦ -13.3 dB -12.9 dB
Fig. 4. Thinned arrays, starting from a λ/2-spaced, uniform, linear array. ϑs = 60◦ 14.8 dBi 3.7◦ -13.3 dB -12.9 dB
(a) Dynamic programming placement; (b) CDS placement based on a by 35
cyclically shifted {59, 29, 14}-CDS array – complemented placement.
B. Effect of the use of X3-sa-s
The X3-sa discussed in Section III is now used in the
16 14.8
14.8 dBi
dBi 14.8
14.8 dBi
dBi 14.8
14.8 dBi
dBi
ϑsc = 0◦
14
ϑsc = 30◦
12
ϑsc = 60◦
array configurations depicted in Fig. 4. It is clear that the DynP
10
8
design allows for using a maximum of 4 X3-sa-s, whereas the
CDS design can accommodate up to 7 X3-sa-s (see Fig. 6).
|D(ϑ)| [dBi]

6
4
z
2
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 30
0 x
−2 O
−4
−6 29.5 λ
−8 a
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
z
ϑ [deg] 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 30
x
a O

16 14.8
14.8 dBi
dBi 14.8
14.8 dBi
dBi 14.8
14.8 dBi
dBi 29 λ
ϑsc = 0◦
14
ϑsc = 30 ◦ b
12 z
ϑsc = 60◦
10 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 30
x
8 O
|D(ϑ)| [dBi]

6
4
29 λ
2
0 c
−2
−4
Fig. 6. Thinned arrays, with some of the elements being replaced by X3-
−6 sa-s. (a) DynP placement + 4 X3-sa-s; (b) CDS placement + 4 X3-sa-s; (c)
−8 CDS placement + 7 X3-sa-s.
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
ϑ [deg]
The AF-s corresponding to the linear arrays in Fig. 6
b
are shown in Fig. 7, with the key array performance metrics
Fig. 5. Array factors (κ = 1) of the thinned arrays in Fig. 4. (a) DynP being summarised in Table II. As expected, D(ϑ)max slightly
placement; (b) CDS placement. diminishes at broadside but it is enhanced at 60◦ , with the gain
being larger in the case of adding 7 X3-sa-s (1.2 dB) when
compared to the case of adding only 4 X3-sa-s (0.7 dB). The
The AF-s of the two linear arrays are shown in Fig. 5. D(ϑ)max enhancement is remarkably similar when comparing
Furthermore, the following key array performance metrics the DynP and CDS arrays, which allows conjecturing that
are given in Table I: the maximum directivity D(ϑ)max , the incorporating X3-sa-s will yield similar results in conjunction
beamwidth (BW), the peak sidelobes level (peak SLL) and the with any sparse linear array that can accommodate them,
first sidelobes level (first SLL), namely the level of the lobes irrespective of the employed placement algorithm.
adjacent to the main beam (the peak SLL and first SLL being
normalised with respect to the main beam). TABLE II. K EY ARRAY PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR THE ARRAY
FACTORS IN F IG . 7.
◦
As expected, the patterns are GL-free up to 60 beam
scanning. The obtained D(ϑ)max is the same, a direct conse- D(ϑ)max Beamwidth First SLL Peak SL
quence of both arrays having the same number of elements (see DynP placement + 4 X3-sa-s
[Section V] [12]). Moreover, D(ϑ)max does not change with ϑs = 0◦ 14.4 dBi 2.8◦ -16 dB -13.9 dB
scanning. The BW of the CDS array is consistently narrower, ϑs = 30◦ 14.8 dBi 3◦ -16.3 dB -13.6 dB
◦
ϑs = 60 15.1 dBi 4.9◦ -16.4 dB -14.3 dB
this deviating from the observation in [Section III] [12] that
relates the BW to the array length (practically, equal in this CDS placement + 4 X3-sa-s
ϑs = 0◦ 14.4 dBi 1.9◦ -12.6 dB -12.1 dB
case). This situation is attributed to the elements being more ϑs = 30◦ 14.8 dBi 2.1◦ -13.4 dB -12.3 dB
evenly spread in the CDS configuration (thus, closer to the ϑs = 60◦ 15.1 dBi 3.7◦ -14 dB -13.1 dB
cases examined in [12]), while the DynP placement has most CDS placement + 7 X3-sa-s
elements concentrated at the arrays centre, with just some loose ϑs = 0◦ 14.1 dBi 1.9◦ -12.4 dB -11.4 dB
elements towards the edges. On an overall, the DynP placement ϑs = 30◦ 14.7 dBi 2.1◦ -13.4 dB -11.9 dB
performs better in terms of sidelobes level (SLL). ϑs = 60◦ 15.3 dBi 3.7◦ -14.1 dB -13.1 dB

978-1-5090-0783-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

 2016 Loughborough Antennas & Propagation Conference (LAPC)

14.4
14.4 dBi
dBi 14.8
14.8 dBi
dBi 15.1
15.1 dBi
dBi 24 22.2
22.2 dBi
dBi 21.3
21.3 dBi
dBi 16.8
16.8 dBi
dBi
16
ϑsc = 0◦ 22 ϑsc = 0◦
14 ◦ 20 ◦
ϑsc = 30 ϑsc = 30
12 18
ϑsc = 60◦ ϑsc = 60◦
10 16
14
8
12
|D(ϑ)| [dBi]

|D(ϑ)| [dBi]
6 10
4 8
2 6
4
0 2
−2 0
−4 −2
−4
−6
−6
−8 −8
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
ϑ [deg] ϑ [deg]

a a
14.4
14.4 dBi
dBi 14.8
14.8 dBi
dBi 15.1
15.1 dBi
dBi 24 22.2
22.2 dBi
dBi 21.3
21.3 dBi
dBi 16.8
16.8 dBi
dBi
16
ϑsc = 0◦ 22 ϑsc = 0◦
14 20
ϑsc = 30◦ ϑsc = 30◦
12 18
ϑsc = 60◦ ϑsc = 60◦
10 16
14
8
12
|D(ϑ)| [dBi]

|D(ϑ)| [dBi]
6 10
4 8
2 6
4
0 2
−2 0
−4 −2
−4
−6
−6
−8 −8
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
ϑ [deg] ϑ [deg]
b b
14.1
14.1 dBi
dBi 14.7
14.7 dBi
dBi 15.3
15.3 dBi
dBi 24 21.9
21.9 dBi
dBi 21.3
21.3 dBi
dBi 17.0
17.0 dBi
dBi
16
ϑsc = 0◦ 22 ϑsc = 0◦
14 ◦ 20 ◦
ϑsc = 30 ϑsc = 30
12 18
ϑsc = 60◦ ϑsc = 60◦
10 16
14
8
12
|D(ϑ)| [dBi]

|D(ϑ)| [dBi]
6 10
4 8
2 6
4
0 2
−2 0
−4 −2
−4
−6
−6
−8 −8
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
ϑ [deg] ϑ [deg]

c c
Fig. 7. Array factors (κ = 1) of the thinned arrays in Fig. 6. (a) Fig. 8. Radiation patterns (κ = 2) of the thinned arrays in Fig. 6 in the case
DynP placement + 4 X3-sa-s; (b) CDS placement+4 X3-sa-s; (c) CDS of using a cos(ϑ)-type elementary radiator. (a) DynP placement + 4 X3-sa-s;
placement+7 X3-sa-s. (b) CDS placement+4 X3-sa-s; (c) CDS placement+7 X3-sa-s.

TABLE III. K EY ARRAY PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR THE ARRAY

To conclude with, the use of X3-sa-s in the case of FACTORS IN F IG . 8.
cos(ϑ)-type elementary radiators is examining via the pattern-
D(ϑ)max Beamwidth First SLL Peak SL
multiplied array patterns shown in Fig. 8, the key array
performance metrics being summarised in Table III. The be- DynP placement + 4 X3-sa-s
haviour of D(ϑ)max evidences the -6 dB drop in the radiation ϑs = 0◦ 22.2 dBi 1.9◦ -16.1 dB -15.9 dB
ϑs = 30◦ 21.3 dBi 2.1◦ -15.9 dB -14.5 dB
pattern at 60◦ . Moreover, this drop also affects the peak ϑs = 60◦ 16.8 dBi 3.7◦ -14.2 dB -10.1 dB
SLL that becomes -10 dB, -7.8 dB and -8.7 dB for the cases CDS placement + 4 X3-sa-s
of DynP+4 X3-sa-s, CDS+4 X3-sa-s and CDS+7 X3-sa-s ϑs = 0◦ 22.2 dBi 1.9◦ -12.7 dB -12.7 dB
arrays, respectively. This metric is insufficient for radar ap- ϑs = 30◦ 21.3 dBi 2.1◦ -13 dB -12.7 dB
plications and its improvement is a subject of future research. ϑs = 60◦ 16.8 dBi 3.7◦ -12.7 dB -7.9 dB
CDS placement + 7 X3-sa-s
ϑs = 0◦ 21.9 dBi 1.9◦ -12.5 dB -12.5 dB
V. C ONCLUSIONS ϑs = 30◦ 21.3 dBi 2.1◦ -13 dB -13 dB
ϑs = 60◦ 17 dBi 3.7◦ -12.9 dB -8.8 dB
A novel approach for compensating the scan loss in wide-
angular scanning array antennas due to the pattern falloff of
physical radiators was presented. The design philosophy was
based on replacing elements in (linear) arrays with subarrays arrays. An optimised subarray, with 5 dB radiation intensity
offering an enhanced radiation intensity at large angles. The enhancement at 60◦ was designed. It was incorporated into two
space for accommodating the subarrays was provided by linear array designed by means of dynamic programming and
resorting to suitable thinning techniques yielding a 50% reduc- Cyclic Differences Sets placement methods. An up to 1.2 dB
tion of the number of elements when compared with uniform improvement of the maximum directivity at 60◦ beam scanning

978-1-5090-0783-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

 2016 Loughborough Antennas & Propagation Conference (LAPC)
was demonstrated. The results are opportune for improving the
performance of wide-angular scanning radar array antennas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research reported in this paper was carried out during
a placement of Fannush Shofi Akbar at the Delft University of
Technology that was financed Directorate General of Higher
Education of Indonesia by the scheme of Sandwich-Like and
PMDSU Scholarship. The received financial support is greatly
acknowledged.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. I. Skolnik, G. Nemhauser and J. W. Sherman, III, “Dynamic pro-
gramming applied to unequally-spaced arrays,” IRE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., vol. AP-12, pp. 35–43, Jan. 1964.
[2] D. G. Leeper, “Isophoric arrays - massively thinned phased arrays with
well-controlled sidelobes,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 47,
no. 3, pp. 1825–1835, Dec. 1999.
[3] I. E. Lager, C. Trampuz, M. Simeoni, and L. P. Ligthart, “Interleaved
array antennas for FMCW radar applications,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag., vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 2486–2490, Aug. 2009.
[4] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., New
York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2005.
978-1-5090-0783-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
[5] R. N. Bracewell, The Fourier Transform and Its Applications, Boston:
McGraw-Hill, 2000.
[6] R. L. Haupt, “Thinned arrays using genetic algorithms,” “Optimized
weighting of uniform subarrays of unequal sizes,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag., vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 993–999, July 1994.
[7] G. Oliveri, M. Donelli, and A. Massa, “Linear array thinning exploiting
almost difference sets,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 57, no. 12,
pp. 3800–3812, Dec. 2009.
[8] O. M. Bucci, M. D’Urso, T. Isernia, P. Angeletti, and G. Toso, “Deter-
ministic synthesis of uniform amplitude sparse arrays via new density
taper techniques,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 58, no. 6,
pp. 1949–1958, June 2010.
[9] B. Fuchs, “Application of convex relaxation to array synthesis prob-
lems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 634–640,
Feb. 2014.
[10] M. Simeoni, J. H. Dickhof, and I. E. Lager, “Investigation of the poten-
tial for reconfigurability of the non-uniform, linear array antennas,” in
Proc. 29 th ESA Antenna Workshop on Multiple Beams and Reconfig-
urable Antennas, Noordwijk, the Netherlands, Apr. 2007, pp. 227–230.
[11] D. Gordon, “La Jolla cyclic difference set repository,” [Online]. Avail-
able: www.ccrwest.org/diffsets.html.
[12] C. I. Coman, I. E. Lager, and L. P. Ligthart, “Design considerations
in sparse array antennas,” in Proc. 3 rd EuRAD, Manchester, UK,
Sep. 2006, pp. 72–75.